Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lteif v. United States, 78 F.3d 577, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views1 page
    The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment for three reasons: 1) It affirmed substantially for the reasons provided by the magistrate-judge in his June 9, 1995 report and recommendation that was approved by the district court. 2) It noted that some claims raised by the petitioner were not included in the original § 2255 petition and were raised too late. 3) The claims not properly before the court were found to lack merit in any event.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-03-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 78 F.3d 577 Docket: 95-1968

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment for three reasons: 1) It affirmed substantially for the reasons provided by the magistrate-judge in his June 9, 1995 report and recommendation that was approved by the district court. 2) It noted that some claims raised by the petitioner were not included in the original § 2255 petition and were raised too late. 3) The claims not properly before the court were found to lack merit in any event.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views1 page

    Lteif v. United States, 78 F.3d 577, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment for three reasons: 1) It affirmed substantially for the reasons provided by the magistrate-judge in his June 9, 1995 report and recommendation that was approved by the district court. 2) It noted that some claims raised by the petitioner were not included in the original § 2255 petition and were raised too late. 3) The claims not properly before the court were found to lack merit in any event.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    78 F.

    3d 577

    NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished


    opinions may be cited only in related cases.
    Dani LTEIF, Petitioner, Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee.
    No. 95-1968.

    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.


    March 6, 1996.

    Dani Lteif on brief pro se.


    Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Margaret E. Curran and
    Kenneth P. Madden, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
    appellee.
    Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge SELYA and CYR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons recited by the


    magistrate-judge in his report and recommendation dated June 9, 1995,
    subsequently approved by the district court. We note that a number of claims
    advanced by petitioner in this court were not included in his 28 U.S.C. 2255
    petition. Some of these were raised for the first time in his objections to the
    magistrate-judge's report; others have been proffered for the first time only on
    appeal. As a result, none of these contentions is properly before us. See, e.g.,
    Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Munic. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d
    985, 990-91 (1st Cir.1988). Each proves to be without merit in any event.

    Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.

    You might also like